About those PUMAs

Murphy ia amply quoted – who she is, what we’re about and the responses to our letters are mentioned:

The hostile and sometimes threatening emails these Democrats have received back from DNC officials have been posted at the blog of Puma PAC.

at the reaction from DNC officials. She says, “Sure. That’s why I posted them.” She heard of Democrats receiving such emails from Donna Brazile and others, but she says, “I thought they were hoaxes.” Then she saw them and was stunned. “These were to ‘Evie in Florida’. Voters.” She was taken aback by the tone. She says these “get over it” emails came from people “who were elected.”

Susan Estritch adds to the mix

There are stories kicking around about how African-Americans in at least two states (South Carolina and New York itself) who supported Hillary Clinton ended up with primary opponents in their own races for re-election to punish them for being pro-Clinton. This is not the way to win. There are stories kicking around that the reason (or one of them) that the highly effective Hillraisers are not raising the kind of money for Obama that they raised for Clinton is because they have been told that no matter what they do, they will never be the “equal” of the Obama fundraisers.

Good quotes from many PUMAS are included

Shanon from Maryland, another Puma member who donated to Hillary and voted Democratic in five straight past elections won’t vote for Obama, listing his lack of experience, qualifications and track record among her concerns. She says, “I will vote McCain, third-party, stay home or write Hillary Clinton in. At this point, Ichabod Crane is looking better than the choices I have. But make no mistake, I have a choice.”

Love it! After musing over denver possibilities and aftermath, the article adds a new twist at the end:

And what’s more, should word get out that Obama’s operation bears an uncanny resemblance to heavy-handed Chicago pols and Democratic insiders of years gone by (or to the vindictive Richard Nixon), people might question whether he really represents the coming of the New Politics.

Instead, they might suspect all the talk of inclusiveness, bottom-up organizing and unity is just that — talk. Hillary Clinton had a phrase her supporters no doubt recall: “just words.”

Call it delusional, even fanatical. But a growing Web-based movement of Sen. Hillary Clinton supporters is pressing to have Clinton’s name “placed in nomination” at the Democratic convention in Denver later this month. Some are hoping, as Congressional Quarterly reported, that “if the roll call of the states is conducted, she might—might—still win.”

So, if we’re so delusional, why obsess with us? because as even you admit

However unlikely these groups’ chances for success are, the spectacle of continued party disunity must be rattling the cages of Democratic leaders. That, particularly as Obama’s short-lived bounce in the polls (following his travels to the Middle East and Europe in which he appeared to have appointed himself president) has dwindled to nothing.

Well boys, allow me to correct you: the “spectacle” was the facade of unity. The way they threw their base away in the primaries the dog and pony show was bound to come apart. bad, bad voters – why let the truth show up?

7 comments

PUMAs probably will have no meaningful effect on the Democratic Convention as far as preventing Obama from claiming the nomination, especially since Clinton will speak on his behalf at the convention. Still, in a tight general election (the kind we typically have) I suppose it is conceivable that they might make a difference. Sadly and ironically, it would be a difference that goes against most of their own primary interests (at least those who aren’t secretly McCain supporters to begin with).

Though I can’t imagine that PUMAs will have an effect unless they get a huge boost from conservative media (which not surprisingly have become supporters of the movement) their best hope would be to make a difference in the same way that Ralph Nader did against Al Gore in 2000, Ross Perot did against George H.W. Bush in 1992, Ted Kennedy did against Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Ronald Reagan did against Gerald Ford in 1976–drawing just enough attention and votes to help put the candidate their supporters disliked most in the White House. The difference in each of those cases was that the candidate’s supporters actually had a candidate who obviously still sought the position, while Clinton likely will–as she has repeatedly on previous occasions–exhort her supporters to do what they can to avoid a continuation of the Bush policies. A McCain presidency would have a good chance of turning those 5-4 Supreme Court votes against progressives into 7-2 votes against them.

Thus far, consistency, except in avoid-Obama-at-all-costs rhetoric, has not been a key part of PUMA power. PUMAs like to say they’ll vote for a person over a party–and then talk about how they’ll vote against their own interests. One might say it would serve PUMAs right to get what many of them now want, however remote the odds. Fortunately for the rest of us–many of whom supported Hillary over Obama, but value women’s rights above individual candidates–the odds of PUMAs making much difference probably are small.

I hate almost no one, especially over politics, and some of my best friends are PUMAs.🙂 Though I thought I’d made it clear above, I’ll reiterate: In my view PUMAs could conceivable matter, but probably won’t–and I hope they don’t.

Some PUMAs obviously are open McCain supporters, I strongly suspect that some were McCain supporters to begin with and see an opportunity to try to generate some support for their favored candidate, and some PUMAs agree with me that McCain would be far worse for women’s rights than about any Democrat imaginable.

Some PUMAs admit they’ll support Hillary by agreeing to vote for the candidate she endorses, while others have decided that proving their own point is more important.

Some of my best friends are pundits and strategists…not really. I am an activist through and through – I have to believe in it to do it.
NO PUMA agrees to vote for the candidate Hillary endorsed – NONE.
It’s what binds us all together.
I think we are everywhere and we appear on all polls – from the one noting the decrease in democrats to all the ones showing a close race.

I cannot vote for Obama no matter how much Hillary might plead. I was for Hillary because she was the superior candidate but I truly feel Obama is bad for America. His race baiting campaign has made race relations worse than they have been for 40 years. I’m tired of the two parties giving us candidates that we cannot support. This year I will vote for someone else because both of these candidates are not right for America now. It’s not about race, it’s about character and the will of the people. I think PUMA has shown both parties what can be done to influence public opinion by a group of determined people and maybe there will be some better nominees put forward next election.

James, I think you have a complete misunderstanding of what PUMA is upset about… it is not just person over party, though that it part of it… honestly, many Americans are sick and tired of the crap candidates they get out of the two parties, which is why the numbers of “independents” are growing every year.

At least for me, and all the PUMAs I know, it is more about principle than person, party or platform.

The stolen delegates in Michigan that represent millions of voters votes for Clinton that were changed by the party to votes for Obama, and the subversion of equality in the rampant sexism that was commonplace… those are the things that upset PUMAs.

These founding principles of America… Equality and the sanctity of the vote… these principles are much more important than party, person or platform.

“…many Americans are sick and tired of the crap candidates they get out of the two parties, which is why the numbers of ‘independents’ are growing every year.”

I do think that growth is a good thing, and would of course also lead to the rejection of John McCain. I’ve been a registered independent most of my life and have voted for more independents than Dems in presidential elections. But if I’m voting in a state that might be close, I’ll vote for women’s rights over John McCain. Sorry for the slow response–I’ve been out of town for a week.